>>11699185these standardized tests are a poor indicator of academic performance, as has been demonstrated time and time again. there are other metrics to use that speak to whether or not a student will represent their school well.here's a hint: a lot of the students scoring mediocre scores are the ones doing great things for the school

>>11699185YES! Universities are institutions of LEARNING. We are all at different levels in our journey for knowledge. Tests are just a way for those that are ahead to get even FURTHER ahead. Bigotry begets bigotry. It's about time, you sick egotistical children

>>11699242https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10627197.2015.997614>This meta-analysis examines the strength of the relationships of ACT® Composite scores, high school grades, and socioeconomic status (SES) with academic performance and persistence into the 2nd and 3rd years at 4-year colleges and universities.>Based upon a sample of 189,612 students at 50 institutions, ACT Composite scores and high school grade point average (GPA) are highly correlated with 1st-year academic performance. First-year academic performance emerges as the best predictor of 2nd- and 3rd-year retention.>SES is a weak predictor of both academic performance and retention.>Moderator analyses of admission selectivity indicate that although the estimated mean validity coefficients for ACT Composite scores and high school GPA vary slightly, the credibility intervals indicate they are valid predictors across levels of admission selectivity.>This longitudinal study demonstrates the importance of precollege academic preparation and how success in the 1st year of college strongly influences persistence toward completing a degree.

>>11699261>>11699256I was blessed enough to get a standardized test prep course. my family was well-off, my school district was well-off.I got a 36. While some of it was my own merit, I'm sure a lot of it was because of my opportunities.I'm now in a physics PhD and I can tell you with 100% confidence that anyone you meet might as well have a random standardized test score above their head. none of it means anything in the grand scheme of things. it is a reflection on your test taking ability and high school focus, with intelligence being the kicker.

I have used these test scores as a pretty valid predictor of gameplay ability across table tops and video games.

The numbers DO mean something. There is some error, as in any measurement, and it (intelligence) does vary based on lifestyle, but nonetheless, those numbers do bear some reflection on ability. (36 is in a PHD for physics...)

>>11699290I suck at tabletop games though. I'm decent at dota. standardized test scores do vaguely reflect intelligence but not enough to be a deciding factor. I'm sure someone with a 19 ACT could beat me at chess easily if they practice

the crux of the issue is that ACT/SAT is not always based on what material students learn at school. the higher-end places will teach to these tests or have opportunities for students to take courses on these tests. but some students will never have these chances no matter how smart they are

>>11699300I didn't take a prep course and I smashed both tests, probably because I'm a genius. This whole situation is a problem of letting normalfags and minorities into universities, which began in significant numbers in the 20th century.

>>11699334you put two people in a room to play a game. one person wins. they're the higher ACT score right? no, I just gave a counter-example and simply explained why using these scores is not useful.I don't know if I would beat any of these people because I suck at chess and am not interested in getting better.

>>11699353I don't think that's how a counterexample would work, since the proposition was that someone with a higher ACT score could become good faster, not that they were better in every single circunstance.Either way, ACT tests for test preparation - true, but in preparing for a test you also show that you either have an extremely high intelligence or, more likely, the habit of studying and learning in an efficient manner. That's what gets most people through their first years in a good shape. Not the ability to crush every subject with a half-assed attempt, but the ability to balance to their studies and to constantly improve their knowledge on a subject. If you were good enough to get a good ACT score, you have one way or another acquired the skills that are necessary for withstanding graduation.Also, the subjects required in those tests are relevant contents, and having a good domain on their topics does ease your learning. I don't think you can compare it to something completely irrelevant such as chess.

>>11699353>I just gave a counter-example and simply explained why using these scores is not useful.

Yes, and I explained you are just posting confusion. You are conflating skill and intelligence. Take someone with a 19 ACT score and a similar level of interest/knowledge of the game of chess and play. You will win. Isolate your variables or you are making me believe that you either really hacked the ACT/paid/are lying/ etc. because your argumentation is very poor.

>>11699413>>11699399im not retarded. however I keep trying to say that this score is not a predictor of anything. I have enough experience to tell you that retards will get a 35 and the smartest people I've met in phd might have a 28. stop caring about a single number

>>11699283They are not legally allowed to use a point system that awards more or fewer points based on race. They are absolutely allowed to consider race for admissions in other ways. That was the result of the Supreme Court case on the subject. EVERY school in America practices some form of affirmative action.

>>11699398>since the proposition was that someone with a higher ACT score could become good faster, not that they were better in every single circunstance.

Maybe what will keep Chess interesting in the future is such disparities and testing them between humans.

I think a large theme of what these race and IQ threads touch upon, and really that should now include class, among other factors (the future is Now). How should a large mass of people deal with a life of feeling like they were, in fact, born without the talents they are *encouraged* to be envious of in others?

First, I think, would be instilling pic related in the general populace. Second, would be what is occurring, ever greater niche creation in culture, knowledge, and ability to mold your education to what you, personally, WANT to be good at. Because if someone wants to be good at physics, he really may not have time to be GooD at Chess. But it may make it interesting for him to play a casual game with someone of lower ability, but who specialized in the game, because that lower ability discourages him from pursuing something such as theoretical physics.

I never said it's the sole predictor of anything, simply that I've found it fairly apt in predictive power. There are a lot of variables, as I've been saying. You're the only one suggesting it's *a single number* that predicts everything.

You've also walked back your claim, you no longer are saying a 19 is equal to a 36. You also seem to think you are infallible in discerning a person's intelligence. It's just one thing to consider. Moreover, it's a snapshot at one time in their life. Maybe their sibling had just committed suicide. Yes, they will be an outlier. But statistics only works on large groups, like an entire nation or state.

>>11699261>lets just proceed through reificationStudents do well in school based on motivation and disposition. Raw intelligence has very little to do with it. The students who get good test scores and high GPAs are the ones committed enough to do their assignments and study regularly. For every 4.0 GPA earned by a legitimate genius sleeping through courses, EVERY other 4.0 GPA and outstanding standardized test score is the result of people thinking that putting effort into school is something they should be doing.

The ONLY common denominator among successful Ivy School graduates was whether or not their parents made them do chores as children. If you don't understand that character defines success and that high character being instructed to children correlates to IQ but that IQ alone and performance on standardized testing in a vacuum is meaningless, you're arguing your personal politics and not science.

what do you mean encouraged. intelligence is what separates us from other animals, it is a fundamentally desirable/good/productive thing

also that quote is ridiculous, people don't "settle into their place" when born into high inequality, and they certainly do compare themselves unfavorably to the rich/smart/lucky. everywhere you go it's the same story: the losers are miserable and cope hard, while the genetically fortunate enjoy a much better time of it.

the reality is there is no solution, the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.

>>11699438I never said the two numbers are equal. my original point was that if you try to use a single number as a predictor for success in anything then you'll run into problems. which is what these college admissions committees often have to do. they don't have the full perspective on the students, so a low score has to be taken at face value. but this test is a single number that results from a single test, when in the grand scheme of things these students are way more than that. maybe it's my anecdotal experience but I can unequivocally say once you're above a certain threshold in standardized test scores there's nothing different to be gained. this is why the schools are ridding the admissions of these test; the scores don't tell them any more than grades and extracurriculars do.

also we can (hopefully) agree that collegeboard/ETS are the some of the scummiest and least valid companies in america. the only reason these tests are as big as they are now is because these companies lobby for them to be deemed unanimous so they can continue making money on an industry that shouldn't exist, and profit by taking money from eager students' parents

>>11699453>my original point was that if you try to use a single number as a predictor for success in anything then you'll run into problems. which is what these college admissions committees often have to do.

No college admissions testing has done that, I think, ever. They also get your transcripts of your grades from 4 years of high school, your application letter, letters of recommendation, etc.

>>11699461and I'm arguing that, as you said, this one piece is invalid. you claimed yourself that people can have bad days, can test worse than others, etc.. there is no reason for a single day's results to be used as a metric for one's potential success.and before you respond with "well it's actually a reflection of many months of study" the test is taken in 3 hours. there are so many things that can happen or go wrong. and there are so many curricula that exist. I have no doubt that the world's most creative artists have no use for a 36 on the science or math section, and yet they're being considered under the same conditions.

>>11699185If they're concerned with the low amount of poor black and hispanic kids then maybe they should make affirmative action based on socioeconomic status then on race. The poor black/hispanic kid isn't benefiting from AA, it's the rich black/hispanic kid who does.

>>11699185>amid concern that they are unfair to poor, black and hispanic studentsIt's a bullshit reason, and the obsession of the American higher education system over minorities is pathetic. But standardised testing is a meme that should be left to rot, so their decision is welcome.

Because women and blacks/hispanics underachieve on it and whites/asians/men overachieve. That's it. Just another step in academia's attempts to rig the entire thing against their actual achievers, because achievement is... bad.

I don't understand how people can think the existence of "test prep" material and classes invalidates a test as classist (and then since some non-Asian minorities tend to be poorer, racist). Beyond memorizing vocabulary, test prep really doesn't help you that much besides the basics of "how to take an exam."

>>11700334you mean another step in academia's attempts to unrig the entire thing? because right now it's rigged for whites and asians, many of whom are born into situations where they never have to worry about whether or not they'll do well on the SAT.

>>11700752inadequacy and jealousy. there is no other answer.these people are envious because they were rejected from good schools. they were rejected because they lack any ounce of humanity or emotional maturity.

>>11700787Exactly, but how do you explain that to people who parrot it off like it's fact? I saw a pic from a reddit thread about this and all they can say is it's a good thing because of "socioeconomic factors"

If a person truly feels that they had a bad day, they can retake it. I signed up for a second take just as insurance, and even though I felt I did well the first time, I took it the second time (somewhat for fun. I actually found tests enjoyable, some of the time). The results were similar, well within statistical bounds, and this despite drastic worsening of my sleeping schedule due to the second test being during summer break. The results, despite being similar, were revealing. My reading score went up and my math score went down a bit. Guess which activities I was more engaged in during break?

We should also consider why these Ivy league schools, somewhat notorious for nepotism, bribery, etc. are dropping, perhaps, the most objective metric. You can claim GPA is a better reflection, but many students can get a better grade simply by asking, if not a slight flirt.

We clearly prune out people who have ability but lacked the social conditions to be conforming. It's another attempt to remove all distinctions between competent and incompetent people. All that will matter is how much you're willing to bend over for the people above you.

>>11700847American culture is centered around niggers. They have holidays for niggers. They killed hundreds of thousands of white men to free niggers. They listen to nigger music. They elect a nigger as their president. They dress and act like niggers. They draw the entirety of their modern culture from niggers. They post sassy gifs about niggers. They watch sportsball in worship of niggers. Their biggest event of the year involves throwing parties in honor of niggers playing sports. They use nigger slang like "bruh" and "thot". When you say "Martin Luther" they're not thinking of the father of protestantism. They're thinking of the nigger. Their cities are completely overrun with niggers. They worship their ZOGbot police force disproportionately filled with niggers and their global police force of soldiers filled with niggers. Their men sit around watching nigger ball while their women sit around watching nigger talk shows. They worship niggers like Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson and Jackie Robinson while attacking the whites who actually built their country before niggers took over. Their movies are filled with niggers and their music charts are topped by niggers. They send niggers to the Olympics and celebrate when the niggers win because those niggers are true red blooded american niggers. They watch nigger porn to a point where "BBC" does not make them think of an international media company but about nigger penises instead. They will tell you how much they hate niggers and how the mutt's law meme is a stale joke and they are just pretending to love niggers but the evidence speaks for itself in that America has always been and will be a nation of nigger loving niggers

>>11700781I love how you can never state why Asians and Whites do better on tests.What stops a black or latino from learning basic math and science? What stops them from having a basic reading and writing skills?Please fucking tell me. >m-muh poverty!!Poor whites do better on these tests than middle class and wealthy blacks. WHY IS THAT?You fucks can never, EVER answer it.

Not the worst move ever but they’re probably only doing it because they know people of color score lower. This frees them up to admit more students with shitty scores because they’re a gay Nigerian or wrote an essay about white fragility.

>>11699242Lol how can you be so smart and then so wrong. I got a 35 so I must be an idiot but the ACT is a legit test. It's just too easy. And yet most people still get an F equivalent. The SAT is just stupid.

>>11701752what I don't like about it might be that it imples their position of "people" is less important than their colorit's like it's reinforcing the importance oif the color of their skin above their individualityI guess colored people has a much better order of precedence at least to me.

I hope I was able to convey my impression. I think this might be why it annoys me

>>11699272While I could request you to prove all of your statements,>36 ACT>PhD>wealthy familyI see this is likely what you are seeking, and thus not have to address the glaring issue in your argument: you have no data to drive your belief, just anecdote. Provide evidence that test scores do not correlate to intelligence and disproves the additional evidence provided in this thread.

>>11702250It's the same in Australia. However, there is a standardised test that you do in year 11 or 12 called the GAT (general achievement test) which is used just in case you can't make the end of year exams in year 12 for whatever reason. This is rare so naturally noone ever gives a fuck about it but I do know of a person who had to use his GAT results due to a medical emergency and they were terrible. He was in a situation where he was going into the family business anyway, so I can't imagine what his future would've been like otherwise.

this is especially fucking retarded considering it's the UC system, which basically has all the community colleges filter into it>be [insert group that SATs apparently discriminate against] and do poorly in high school>go to community college for two years for cheap, if not free, if not actually netting money from grants and scholarships>if you get a 3.5+ GPA (which is even easier than doing so in high school), have a massively higher chance at UCLA or Berkeley than as a freshman admit, get guaranteed acceptance at UCI as consolationWhat the hell kind of person supposedly fails the SAT, but manages to get the 3.8+ high school GPA, extracurriculars, AP classes, and whatever else the fuck needed to get into the best UCs? I seriously fail to see the rationale.

>>11702250>based on highschool grades.There are nearly 25,000 public high schools in the US, almost all run by local schools boards elected by the voters in that area. There is no standardization of lessons across the country and often not even across the state. Grading criteria tends to be whatever the individual teacher decides it to be. As a result you have illiterate students graduating with honors from MLK Jr. High School while a kid two standard deviations above normal struggles to maintain a 3.0 at Thomas Jefferson High School. High schools in the US are not equivalent to each other and that's unlikely to change due to the local nature of education. Universities know this so they're wary of using high school GPA for anything other than a tie breaker from similar schools.

>>11699185Academia shifting from quality into quantity because the degrees are not worth what they used to and the whole trick of selling the name of your institution as a brand that charges 10x what others charge to teach the exact same material is no longer working. To offset the projected loss, the dumb masses are lured instead and are about to waste their time chasing a devaluing piece of paper that will rapidly lose its prestige and with it, its demand. Now fast forward to 2040 - most universities are gone and the only major ones left are a handful that managed to pull the slider back towards quality before it was too late. Think of a more personalized way of teaching, a little bit closer to direct mentorship which is so expensive that, just like back in the days, only the upper class and child prodigies have access to it while the dumber lower ones have to deal with the mass-produced lectures of uninspired professors that we have right now. This quality/quantity division is present in pretty much everything and is a great basic model that you can apply in any case involving time or money.

>>11699426>in my experience AP tests are ignored. I knew people who failed multiple math/science AP tests who got into MIT still.Is this true? I know a guy who applied to MIT with 5 AP classes and he got rejected because he didn't have enough AP credits.

>>11705632>>11705628underrated. imagine being a UC prof and and knowing your colleagues at [insert state name] state uni and the ivies are banging primo pussy. you're stuck with kevin wang, priyanka gupta and felicia chao.

>>11700779not him but I go to a # 4 in the world undergrad engineering program.Having insane drug addicted family members trying to assault you and constantly being late to school because your family can't get up can wreck your gpa. I also only got into my top 50 university because I still got a 1420 on the SAT and 31 ACT. Funny how it seemed to reflect my intelligence way more than GPAGPA is actually waaaaaay more culturally biased than SAT and ACT, because different schools can have wildly different difficulties/class rankings. If these schools actually wanted to get past mommy and daddy helicopter kids, they would have gotten rid of GPA, not standardized tests.This elimination only happened because niggers happen to fail more at it, and certain ghetto schools have extremely easy classes where even the dumbest monkey can get a high GPA

>>11705752>If these schools actually wanted to get past mommy and daddy helicopter kids, they would have gotten rid of GPA, not standardized tests.this. but... >>11705752>This elimination only happened because niggers happen to fail more at it, and certain ghetto schools have extremely easy classes where even the dumbest monkey can get a high GPAyou're only grazing the truth of the matter here. yes they want more darkies but they also want more hispanics and whites. the UC doesn't have a lot of white students. or hispanics. it is majority asian/indian... witth 30% "white" of which 70% is jewish.

>>11705685Do you know why you were rejected?>>11705692>some schools don't have AP courses and yet their students can get in. this is not a criterionI know, from what I've heard it's a sliding meter, or rather a proportional thing. You need some certain amount of AP credits as feasible, so if your school gave less classes you would need less classes.

they want to let in donor kids and legacy kids... berkeley/ucla especially. right now they cant justify it. but whadda you know they will begin saying oh this kid has a great experience about interning at their grandpa's movie studio...

>>11705765>Do you know why you were rejected?i fucked up my interview badly i think. i'm a bit awkward in emails too. i was also a varsity waterpolo player and had 5.26 gpa out of 4 (i took extra classes at the local uc during the summer and my ap/ib classes counted for extra).

>>11705774Damn, I can't imagine that. Are you sure it was the interview? I thought MIT was a school for autists, if you were getting a 5.26 GPA along with 12 AP classes and a varsity team, I can't imagine them denying you; it must be much more competitive than I thought.

>>11705815I don't know for sure why i was rejected. The guy who they assigned to interview me had done an MIT MBA. he was this chubby black dude. he didn't seem interested in me or my story/accomplishments at all. but they say the interview doesn't really matter and its mostly there to make alumni feel involved so they continue giving money so i don't know. maybe some asshole legacy or donor kid got my spot. who knows. It does hurt though.

my friend did get in with worse stats and her dad made sure to not request financial aid. his theory was that they would let her in because he was gonna pay cash. meanwhile i did apply for financial aid. i don't know if that's a real reason why they reject people but who knows. they claim they are need blind.

>>11699242I also got 36 on the ACT and it's literally retard tier reading and math problems that can be done on autopilot provided you did a couple practice questions. Doesn't mean shit when it comes to understanding tougher concepts , rather just an indicator that you're not retarded and work fast.

>>11705955>>11705902Its easy to get 36 if you take 1.5 years to prep like all these kiddos do with their helicopter mamas. However, since these tests are billed as "no need to study it just measures what you already know" the poors/blacks/browns take it without studying and don't retake it.

The truth is that with Khan Academy and libgen, all the study books are available for free. There are more and more 36s and 1600s every year. The rich/elite kids are also not necessarily doing so well... they prefer doing coke in their teens. So there is consensus that the tests don't mean what they used to.

>>11705973aka. the elite used to use the tests to make sure their kids looked smart and got in. however now its immigrants and hard working poor kids who get the top scores. thats no bueno. as always the elites are using the le help pooor niggers excuse. the biggest beneficiary of "race-based" admissions are rich white kids. without the whole "craft a diverse class" meme they have no chance of getting into berkeley or ucla.

>>11699565>they should make affirmative action based on socioeconomic status then on race.But they already do that.So many universities do that shit yet people here are completely ignorant and make shit up. Texas public universities will send out letters to admission to the top 10% of every school. Even the shitty isolated small highschools on the northern Texan border. Harvard sends out letters to well performing kids in areas that don't typically enroll in it

>The poor black/hispanic kid isn't benefiting from AA, it's the rich black/hispanic kid who does.The poor ones are benefitting a lot though. Many here think they all try to go to Yale or Harvard but the vast majority go the a university nearby or if they are already university bound step up from average state school to high ranking state school.

>>11706122That's why the statistics for minorities in elite schools aren't growing like expected. Those guys just go to something more feasible since going out of state is expensive or just go Com college>university. Lot of inequity in education is in the elementary and secondary level.

>>11706100Yes it does. the "race-based" admissions introduces this concept of "crafting a class"... one that is supposed to be self-cohesive and everything. so they say lets let in some blacks, some mexicans, and lots of whites. When they go for pure test-based and merit: it becomes overwhelmingly asian/indian/international student.

So yes they will let in 10% blacks (currently 2% at berkeley) and 15-20% hispanics (currently 10%). But in exchange they will let in around 50% whites (currently 30%) and bring down asians to 15% (from 70%).

>>11699186Why are you retards so obsessed with race? Is it another way to mask your insecurities and inferiority complex?Seriously, for a board that prides itself on intellect it's riddled with complete retards.

I got in a low tier UC through community college by the way. I never took the SAT. Don't be retarded and think everyone already takes it to begin with. Still I think this decision is stupid but can't be bothered to explain my reasoning.

>>11699185The SAT is pretty retarded because everyone can perform well on the test by practising for 1-3 months, but serious students don't want to waste that much time in their life. So it's equalizer for stupid people to get in.

These tests aren't great that's why. I took the ACT once and scored a 19, a score that labeled me essentially retarded(the test labeled me as "not college ready) and yet I excelled at all my AP exams and did extremely well in university. I even managed to graduate two years ahead. Exams only provide a correlation with intelligence and a weak one at that.

>>11699266University education is heavily subsidized and keeping students out of the economy places a disproportionate burden on the rest of the population.

That is why there should be even less students. You had the entirety of high-school to "find yourself" or whatever. What proof do you have that you will suddenly show potential that justifies further investment in your education?

It's a moot point though. Coro has changed higher education forever. In the future only the upper class and the highly talented will be able to afford to go to university, the rest will go to trade schools, tech schools and coding bootcamps. As it should be.

Kind of the point is that the material is rediculously easy, but the time limit is the main consideration. The entire standardised test industry is aimed at providing practice materials and retests to desperate students. Most people would easily get a high score without prep, but anyone can also achieve near perfect scores with practise and retesting.

The idiotic braincel common core kiddos are good slaves who can do their weekly homework and be 4.0 university students. They don't do so well on these tests however. The UC discovered that the kids who do extremely well on tests sometimes get bad grades and drop out. The students who don't do well sometimes get extremely good grades and graduate/go onto grad school.

>>11706621>there's a good argument about china flooding american universities to steal shit though>>11706517Whites are pro "hard work, competition, may the best win" when they are guaranteed to win. If someone else turns out to be better, then the whites will change the rules. Life lesson.

ALSO the highest score and highest caliber kids avoid the UCs for undergrad. They go to ivy league and private schools for undergrad and come to Berkeley or UCLA for grad school. The classic UC undergrad is a hard working low iq idiot. They won't get into a good grad school or if they do they won't get the faculty job. UC has to be seen as admitting hard working california kids even if these kids arent high enough iq to get good test scores. That's because UC is under pressure from the state and media to take these kids in.

if i had to guess. its because of this >>11707944and because uc's average sat and act scores are declining year-in year-out. there's programs now that pay kids to take these exams and fast tracks them to private schools and ivies if they score above a certain cut off aka questbridge. UCs are actually super shitty schools compared to the top privates and ivies. lots of bad teachers. lots of adjunct faculty. lots of shitty facilities. lots of bad food and bad housing. lots of gigantic classes. anyone who can go elsewhere will want to go elsewhere.

>>11707975>>11707973Its not cheating. The asians have higher iq than whites. its known for years now. if the US schools were admitting on merit and grades and scores alone... the entire university system would be full of asians. as it is. the powers that be dont like this and so they are using le sad blackies to push the asians out.

I went to UC Berkeley. Yes there are some whites around but if you talk to them you quickly discover that the vast majority of "white-presenting" students at Berkeley are jewish. They all know each other from Jewish camp or something. Most are "assimilated" jews and you can't even tell they're jewish because they're reform jews with a lot of non jewish parents or grandparents.

>>11708180That's the idea but that's 5 years out. The cynic in me who dealt with UC Berkeley admin and knows that they are virtue signalling grubby merchants with zero morals except to get rich quick tells me that they probably will charge money for these tests and make a lot of cash. They are probably seething at college board for making the hundreds of millions they make. The UC is well versed in the rhetoric of "le we are making it more equitable" which surrounds every single decision they make.

>>11708192Yes but enjoy paying 80 dollars to the UC to take a test administered once a year in a ghetto long beach high school. Of course they will make it free for the poverty-case students but not for the middle class and of course it will depend on your parental income.

>>11708205The tests are there to make sure you're not a complete troglodyte when you come in as a freshman. It works. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the UC does not give a flying fuck about the fact that it is mean to poors or blacks or browns or whatever. They are pissed off that 70% of students are asian/indian and that these kids don't care about UC's institutions and don't do alumni givin (the only people who give back regularly are whites who do greek life). They are probably also getting a lot of pressure from the feds to make the school enroll more "average everyday americans" and also pressure from the state of california to enroll more hispanics. Smart blacks are already fast tracked to east coast institutions with historical guilt hanging over them so the black leaders don't care (and they really dont care about poor blacks). The UC is also poor. It has money earmarked for research or this or that but no discretional spending. They want to charge for tests and make money. They're basically competing with college board now so they cut college board out of the market.

Also, I grew up in california. Every white parent was seething that their kid who got an A in basic classes (not AP/IB) and a "good" score of 1000-1200 didn't get into Harvard or even Berkeley/UCLA. They are prepared to pay full tuition but their kids get rejected and ended up going to cal poly slo or fullerton or ucsb.

UC berkeley will now be free to let these kids in. They will write an essay about their dead grandma during corona and how it made them realize they want to be a doctor or whatever. UC will smile and nod and take financial-aid-free 20k a year plus 15k in housing. They're only losing on the poor blacks/hispanics btw they don't want more of them.

The cream de la cream already see Berkeley/UCLA as safety schools. And every other UC is a joke. Many don't even apply. These kids with full AP/IB and A+ gpa and original research and startups and foundations to alleviate homelessness or whatever. They're working for Harvard/Stanford/UChicago and they get in to those school. They're also getting 1600/36 on top of it all.

>>11708520>You can do very bad on these exams and still do very good in uni likeOk and you can also do very bad at uni in your 20s and somehow do really well at a different uni later on or at grad school. So should we let every 2.0 gpa out of UCI into Harvard math phds?

I had 12 incompletes that all lapsed and i lost this girl i thought i loved so i just let myself fail. To the university this looks like I had good test scores but a bad gpa. They will say le "good scores don't correlate with good gpa". ok. but then i did really well in grad school. So for all you losers who got bad test scores but good gpa... there is someone like me who had good test scores and bad gpa (mostly due to bussy work i didn't bother doing if classes had been standardized test tier based on only a final i would have passed).

>>11708565>They should keep the ACT/SAT and abandon high school GPA, extracurriculars, recommendation letters, etc.This. This. This. The Ecs are trash noise that lets rich people get ahead.

>recommendation lettersespecially this. its super inappropriate to expect over worked npc high school teachers to write majestic letters for each student. the whole system benefits private schools where there are good teachers who can write well.

>>11708571>No? In an ideal world maybe? Probably not.But you're all proposing that low test scores don't correlate with good gpas in college. ok on a case by case basis maybe not. and especially not since UC is turning into high school with mandatory 40% of grade based on hw and 20% on projects and only the remainder on finals.

For me, that is a disaster system in which I fail. I can study from the book and ace the final but i missed a lot of hw and projects.

For a lot of you, its great because you do your weekly hw in your little asian/frat/[insert group] cliques and get As.

>>11708575Well they do have the highest IQ and the most rapid advancement in tech in human history. Japanese went from samurai to aircraft carrier in a gen, and Chinese from living in a hovel to high speed rail and AI everywhere and Koreans from third world famine to samsung.

If the task is reducible to right answers, then it is able to be done by a machine.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the world doesn't work that way. We create new problems with every new desire that comes from the problems we create.

Asians haven't created new things because they haven't been rewarded for creating new things until recently. Their system of making old things (stolen from others) work is ill equipped to handle a new generation that is now rewarded for creating new things. This changes what "merit" means.

Grade Grubbers produce nothing new. You can't have a system that eliminates the b and c student, or the one who studied French lit and expect to create new things.

>>11708671You idiot. I did very well in humanities as well. I got 5/5s on all the Aps for the humanities, 800/800 and I actually preferred the comparative lit or philosophy classes because it was mostly based on essays, with the entire grade substitutable for a final paper.

The "east asians aren't creative" is a lie. It's literally a cope. The 19th c european culture was created by a leisurely wealthy elite class. Today many ballet dancers and opera singers and classical musicians and writers are asian.

>>11708698Nah. Its because THEY do reflect intelligence and the system is not being setup to help intelligent students succeed. Its setup so busywork-completing braincels get credentials and make the economy go rooom.

>>11699185Just coming to this thread to say FUCK UC. They failed me out and made me think I was a loser. Then I went to a different school in a different country and got in a ivy league phd program. fuck UC.

>>11708951No because projects mean you have to deal with other students' incompetence, inconsistency, and stress.

Finals should be the majority of the grade and the only determiner. The final should be set by the department with input from the professor who mostly just goes through teaching the material at lectures.

On the contrary it's a good way to expose the brainlets who've gotten by kids menu HS subjects through sheer attention and diligence. So you get two items of evidence: intellectual potential (from standardized testing) and work ethic (GPA), rather than just one or the other

>>11705958idk man i studied over spring break while also learning trumpet and trombone and got a 35. Jokes aside I was disappointed it really is an easy peezy test, went over every section 3 times. it's the SAT that is studiable and therefore less valid

>>11709040You were probably in flow due to your demanding school work and helpful parents. Imagine being born to an alcoholic parent and a sociopath dad and going to a shitty public school that barely teaches basic math.

>>11709047>Imagine being born to an alcoholic parent and a sociopath dad and going to a shitty public school that barely teaches basic math.literally me, in fact that pushed me more probably i was set on doing it but then it was easy. my best friend was valedictorian and he couldn't get over 32 because he wasn't fast enough. it's speed and basic ability. you just need basic grammar, punctuation, and trig. beyond that it's all you.

for what it's worth i still ended up with nothing and i my mom is dead so we're in the same boat lmao

>>11709065Yeah me too. My issue is that after I got into a good school my dead beat dad began stalking me and following me to campus. I had to call the cops because he somehow talked himself into my dorm.

>>11709073>>11709047Btw I didn’t take the act but I got 1590 on the SAT. So I’m not saying poors and troubled kids do worse just that it is harder to study with constant distractions so fuck the UC for trying to take my accomplishment away from me.

Ironically enough the more I think about it, I would think it's easier for a kid from a rough/disadvantaged household but good potential to get a good ACT/SAT score rather than GPA. GPA requires 4 straight years of full attention, attendance, and discipline. That's really hard for someone with a rough home life or issues, could be a year or 2 in there that really fucks your cumulative score up. You need support from teachers and your parents for years.

Testing on the other hand, if you're naturally smart and bright, is a matter of applying yourself for a couple weeks of studying and just taking it. ACT/SAT study guides are freely and cheaply available IRL or on the internet at this point, you're either going to be able to get it done in the allotted amount of time or not.

>In 2025, the 290,000-student UC system will either replace the SAT and ACT with its own admissions test, or if it’s unable to create its own exam, will eliminate its standardized testing requirement altogether.If they do the former, it's going to be even worse.

>>11699272>>11699444Wrong. Intelligence is the most accurate predictor of academic performance, success in finance, relationships, and almost every other domain in life. IQ tests are more valid predictors of job productivity than any other measure ever devised.